Tag Archives: indian gaming regulatory act
Here: Town of Aquinnah’s Cert Petition Commonwealth of Massachusetts Cert Petition Question presented: Whether the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a statute of general application, impliedly repealed other federal statutes that specifically subject Indian tribes to state restrictions on gaming, a question that has divided the courts of appeals. Lower … Continue reading →
Here is the opinion in State of Kansas v. Zinke. An excerpt: The question in this case is whether a legal opinion letter issued by the Acting General Counsel of the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) regarding the eligibility of Indian lands … Continue reading →
Here are the materials in Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Brown (C.D. Cal.): 80-1 State Motion 81-1 Tribe Motion 82 State Opposition 83 Tribe Opposition 85 Tribe Reply 87 State Reply 92 DCT Order
Here are the briefs (so far) in Jamul Action Committee v. [Chaudhuri]: Jamul Action Committee Opening Brief Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of Interior: Picayune Rancheria Opening Brief Stand Up Opening Brief Federal Brief North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians Brief Picayune Reply Stand Up Reply Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Frank’s Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission (W.D. Wash.): 33 Frank’s Landing Motion for Summary J 38 US Cross Motion for Summary J 39 Frank’s Lansing Reply 40 US Reply 41 DCT Order
Here are the materials in Fort Sill Apache Tribe v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D.D.C.): 60 Stipulated Order 67 Fort Sill Motion to Enforce 67-1 NIGC Letter 68 Opposition 69 Reply 70 DCT Order on Motion to Enforce We posted … Continue reading →
Colusa Indian Community Loses Motion for Reconsideration in Challenge to Enterprise Rancheria Casino Project
Here are the materials in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.): 170 Motion for Reconsideration 171 US Opposition 172 Enterprise Rancheria Opposition 173 Reply 183 DCT Order
Here are the materials in Bay Mills Indian Community v. Snyder (W.D. Mich.): 47-saginaw-chippewa-motion-to-intervene 54-michigan-motion-for-summary-j
Here are the materials in Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico (D.N.M.): 60-nm-motion-to-dismiss-count-iv 64-nm-motion-to-stay 65-nm-motion-to-modify-pi-order 66-response-to-60 69-nm-motion-to-modify 71-motion-to-dismiss-counts-iii-iv 72-motion-to-dismiss-count-ii 73-motion-to-dismiss-count-v 79-reply-in-support-of-60 85-response-to-65 86-response-to-72 87-response-to-71 88-response-to-69 89-response-to-73 90-response-to-64 94-reply-in-support-of-69 95-reply-in-support-of-73 96-reply-in-support-of-65 97-reply-in-support-of-72 98-reply-in-support-of-64 99-reply-in-support-of-71 118-dct-order Prior posts here, here, and … Continue reading →